Hey Drezner! You're lucky you couldn't see the facial expressions and head gestures I was throwing around while watching your facial expressions and head gestures!! They totally exposed the vapid character of your facial expressions and head gestures. My eyebrows go much higher and my head can wag back and forth quite violently!

Isn't Iran pursuing an agenda to control all Muslim Shia? If so, would Obama give Iran a free hand to meddle in Iraq in exchange for Iran terminating its nuclear weapons program?

Quoting jharonfe: It is hard to imagine that a negotiation that spans the gamut from nuclear issues and sanctions, to the Israeli Arab dispute and Hezbollah, has a good chance of success. Or on the impossible chance that it did, that it would be faithfully carried through by all parties. It is hard to see how this is not illusion and wishful thinking.

That's the thing that many find so eyebrow raising about Leverett's grand bargain: it is essentially silent on the ancillary issues you mention (Hezbollah, et al). It is all about the nukes. For many, a grand bargain that turns a blind eye to such matters (which are, let's get real, pretty beside the point w/r/t truly vital US interests) is just way beyond the pale. It's not the wishfulness that takes peoples' breath away, it's the bracingly hard-edged Realpolitik of it all.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Isn't Iran pursuing an agenda to control all Muslim Shia? If so, would Obama give Iran a free hand to meddle in Iraq in exchange for Iran terminating its nuclear weapons program?

1. No Iran is not trying to "control all Shia." If it were, it wouldn't spend all its time showboating

berger boasts...[...] I'm a big fan of squints and eye-rolls. But Dan has a long way to go if he hopes to compete with Bob. You sound like you're ready to rock. How about gracing us with a snap or two? Or are you all talk?

Thanks to Flynt and Dan for an interesting and provocative discussion... The China/Iran analogy doesn't work for me for some of the reasons Dan cited. I would also argue the Iranian regime has more to gain from 'pressing a dagger' at Israel and the US than from sheathing the blade. Most regimes in the region, including Saudi Arabia, get a great deal of mileage out of bashing Israel. Why give that up? The Iranians, Hamas, and their supporters in the region and around the globe see the destruction of the Crusader states as a several-century long struggle. I can understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons. I can also understand Israel's fears. Currently, Iran is run by anti-democratic thugs who hang gay people and oppress one half of the population. Iran supplies the rockets fired into Israel. Some in the region think that makes Iran the good guy. The six-party talks over Korea, btw, may be intact. So is the Korean nuclear program. I don't see anything useful coming out of Flynt's proposal. Iran is clearly not bargaining in good faith. Nobody wants a fight. But that doesn't mean the fight can be avoided. Iran needs to back down. They aren't and

Or are you all talk?

So. clever. Seriously, that was a good one (considering the forum).

Flynt says:

We cannot resolve the Palestinian issue, for example, create a two-state solution, unless Hamas is part and parcel of that, has bought into it, and that is going to be much easier to bring about if Iran is working with us rather than against us.

Flynt goes on to make the same point about Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Dan replies that perhaps Iran's control over Hamas and Hizbullah has been exaggerated. I don't know how much control people think Iran has over Hamas and Hizbullah, but Iranian control certainly isn't what causes Hamas and Hezbollah to desire and seek Israel's destruction. Iran shares that desire and aim with Hamas and Hizbullah, so control here is unnecessary. No doubt the support Iran provides to Hamas and Hizbullah allows Iran some influence over smaller strategical and tactical matters. But I see no reason to believe that Hamas or Hizbullah -- and certainly Hamas -- would alter in the slightest their desire to bring about Israel's destruction if Iran were to withdraw its support. "Hamas" is an acronym for "The Islamic Resistance Movement," after all. They'd have to give up beliefs like this:

"The

Quoting Stapler Malone:
1. No Iran is not trying to "control all Shia." If it were, it wouldn't spend all its time showboating for the Sunni street and would, you know, have shown some evidence at some point of trying to control all Shia.

I understood the Sunni/Shia split to be fundamental to the workings of the Muslim world. Iran does not support Osama and al Queda. It is absent from decision making within Pakistan and the Taliban. That makes no sense considering Iran's desire to harm US interests and exert influence beyond its borders. Only when you apply the theory that the Sunni/Shia distinction trumps all in the Muslim world can Iran's lack of involvement in regard to Osama, Taliban, etc be explained. The US is not the only actor working to limit Iranian influence in Iraq. Saudi Arabia also has a large stake. Iran recently fought a long, bloody war with Sunni Baathist controlled Iraq. So, back to the grand bargain idea. The grand bargain has to be between Sunni and Shia. In that frame of reference it makes no sense to think the US has a seat at that table. The US can bargain away its

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...Professor.aspx Leverett is in the "Ahmadinejad won the election" camp.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Iran does not support Osama and al Queda. It is absent from decision making within Pakistan and the Taliban. That makes no sense considering Iran's desire to harm US interests and exert influence beyond its borders. Only when you apply the theory that the Sunni/Shia distinction trumps all in the Muslim world can Iran's lack of involvement in regard to Osama, Taliban, etc be explained.

By "involvement" I'm going to assume you mean "in alliance with." Iran's lack of an alliance with the Taliban only "makes no sense" if you know nothing about the history there. Up until September, 2001, nobody was more threatened by the Taliban than Iran. They were causing all kinds of problems on the border, sending in tons of refugees, gumming up Tehran's internal anti-terrorism police work, stealing Iran's rhetorical thunder, and contributing to a drug problem in Iran that is truly catastrophic. This is why Iran was so keen to help the US when we first trained our sights on them. The lack of some Tehran-Taliban alliance only "makes no sense" if you are scratching your head thinking "gee, shouldn't there be an axis of evil here?" Hard as

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Leverett is in the "Ahmadinejad won the election" camp.

Yes, and he was on BhTV saying as much at the time. That's some real cracker-jack investigative reporting there DS. In other breaking news, the United States is in the Western hemisphere.

Quoting Stapler Malone: By "involvement" I'm going to assume you mean "in alliance with." Iran's lack of an alliance with the Taliban only "makes no sense" if you know nothing about the history there. Up until September, 2001, nobody was more threatened by the Taliban than Iran. They were causing all kinds of problems on the border, sending in tons of refugees, gumming up Tehran's internal anti-terrorism police work, stealing Iran's rhetorical thunder, and contributing to a drug problem in Iran that is truly catastrophic. This is why Iran was so keen to help the US when we first trained our sights on them. The lack of some Tehran-Taliban alliance only "makes no sense" if you are scratching your head thinking "gee, shouldn't there be an axis of evil here?" Hard as it might be for you to believe, America isn't the center of everything, and just because two players are hostile to us doesn't make them buddies to eachother.

As for the Sunni-Shia stuff you expound upon, I'm not getting into another drawn out messageboard debate on this with someone who gets their expertise from teevee. I'll just say you're wrong, and leave it at

Quoting DenvilleSteve: With madman Saddam running Iraq, Iran had good reason to pursue a nuclear weapons program. It could not afford to be in a position where Iraq had nukes and it did not. Now that Iraq is a relatively predictable democracy Iran is assured it will not acquire nukes. Which removes Irans justification for its nuke program. In order for the US to pressure Iran to not get nukes it had to first remove its need to have nukes.

Alas, other countries' strategic calculus is rarely governed by what outsiders fantasize their strategic calculus to be.

Jay J. writes...[...]

US long-term interests in central Asia argue are explored in this NYT piece. Ideally, Iran would be tricked, delayed or generally prevented from making any more progress towards getting a nuke. I doubt that's going to happen without China's help.

Quoting Stapler Malone: Alas, other countries' strategic calculus is rarely governed by what outsiders fantasize their strategic calculus to be.

what does that mean? that it is not possible to understand what another country wants? Leverett says there is a grand bargain to be had. The US wants Iran to give up its pursuit of nukes. What could the US give Iran to induce it to bargain away its nuke program?

As others have noted, Drezner was incredibly supercilious (check out the etymology of supercilious), conveying by his tics and grimaces his disdain and/or incomprehension of Leverett at almost every moment of the dialogue. I was never exactly sure why, but since superciliousness and superficiality go hand in hand I assume that he must be a closet neocon looking forward to "regime change" in Iran under the sponsorship of the US. Unless it is just too much coffee.

Quoting Francoamerican: As others have noted, Drezner was incredibly supercilious (check out the etymology of supercilious), conveying by his tics and grimaces his disdain and/or incomprehension of Leverett at almost every moment of the dialogue. I was never exactly sure why, but since superciliousness and superficiality go hand in hand I assume that he must be a closet neocon looking forward to "regime change" in Iran under the sponsorship of the US.

Unless it is just too much coffee.

Right: Drezner thinks that dismissive winks and grimaces are equivalent to reasoned rebuttals. A bit like Pinkerton referring to "creepy" utilitarianism as a means of discrediting an entire philosophy, Yglesias smearing his opponents by calling them "disingenuous," and you referring to people on this forum whom you disagree with as "low" or "simple-minded."

Quoting DenvilleSteve: what does that mean?

It means that on the list of reasons Iran wants a nuclear capacity, "Saddam Hussein's presence" was maybe #57 or so. You can pat yourself on the back for supporting his removal, be my guest. Just don't go around delusionally thinking that it matters to Tehran's nuclear ambition.

Quoting Stapler Malone: It means that on the list of reasons Iran wants a nuclear capacity, "Saddam Hussein's presence" was maybe #57 or so. You can pat yourself on the back for supporting his removal, be my guest. Just don't go around delusionally thinking that it matters to Tehran's nuclear ambition.

No, my position is that Iran could justify its nuke program to the rest of the world as long as Saddam was in power, pursuing his own nuclear weapons program. What I still don't follow is why does Iran want nukes now ( I am not sure that they do ) and what could the US offer them, in the context of the grand bargain, to get them to give up on that pursuit?

To accept a two-state solution they [Hamas] would have to lose their religion.

To accept a two-state solution the pro-Apartheid Settler movement would also have to lose its religion, which is perpetual occupation of "Greater Israel." Pro-Settler parties currently run Israel. Even worse, much of the pro-Settler movement is NOT religious. Israel's racist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is a secularist. This suggests that the coalition between pro-apartheid secularists and religious fanatics is expanding.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: No, my position is that Iran could justify its nuke program to the rest of the world as long as Saddam was in power, pursuing his own nuclear weapons program.

Well I'd like to think the world wouldn't accept that as a justification. Israel already has nukes and talks about attacking Iran every other week (much more than Saddam ever did since 1989 or so) and that doesn't seem to make many people shrug at Iran's program as being "fair game."

Quoting DenvilleSteve: What I still don't follow is why does Iran want nukes now ( I am not sure that they do ) and what could the US offer them, in the context of the grand bargain, to get them to give up on that pursuit?

I can see the logic of why they want a nuclear capacity, but I agree that they probably don't want the expense and burden of an actual ready weapon (here I side with de Mesquita). I also wish I knew what the US could offer Iran, but I'm afraid I really don't. If I did, I'd be delivering a powerpoint on Air Force One instead of ranting on a messageboard.

Quoting nikkibong: Right: Drezner thinks that dismissive winks and grimaces are equivalent to reasoned rebuttals.

A bit like Pinkerton referring to "creepy" utilitarianism as a means of discrediting an entire philosophy, Yglesias smearing his opponents by calling them "disingenuous," and you referring to people on this forum whom you disagree with as "low" or "simple-minded."

And a bit like you never making a substantive comment on anything.

Quoting nikkibong: Right: Drezner thinks that dismissive winks and grimaces are equivalent to reasoned rebuttals.

A bit like Pinkerton referring to "creepy" utilitarianism as a means of discrediting an entire philosophy, Yglesias smearing his opponents by calling them "disingenuous," and you referring to people on this forum whom you disagree with as "low" or "simple-minded."

Good one! You drew him in and nailed him.